Talk:Cvent

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Discussion[edit]

Categorization as an Event Management company seems wrong. They make software. Others in the category of Event Management seem to be focused more on the onsite aspects of event management. Might deserve its own category, but for now, seems inaccurate. (Rfkrishnan (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well–researched section on criticism was deleted by an anonymous user in Virgina without any indication or reason. 217.170.204.140 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by 75.75.105.240, propaganda sources have been removed. The Virginia court holds all the information on lawsuits as a neutral intermediary, there should be little dispute. Regarding the employment conditions, while Glassdoor is externally anonymous, they hold the user information. In addition, the amount of reviews stating similar issues justify the statement. 81.106.151.39 (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a lawsuit as asserted by 81.106.151.39 does not establish criticism, many companies enforce their legal rights in courts across the country. The link to the Court is very confusing as it takes you to a captcha, when filled out drops you in a generic search engine and as it stands is not a direct citation. This should be fixed or removed.

In reference to 81.106.151.39's comments about Glassdoor, for a company over 1,000 people to have a handful of comments hardly classifies as statistically relevant or justifying the statement, especially when those comments are both anonymous and unverified. I spent some time on Glassdoor and saw a greater number of positive reviews with a handful of outliers that were perhaps disgruntled employees, I am not sure that classifies as criticism versus individual opinions. My greatest concern about referencing Glassdoor is that while Glassdoor may have some identity information this is hardly trustable as a reliable source and not just a smear campaign against the company from a small minority. Anderson8267 (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]